FRB 121102 Casts New Light on the Photon Mass

0.48 MB·

by  Luca Bonetti

KCL-PH-TH/2017-01, CERN-TH/2017-007
FRB 121102 Casts New Light on the Photon Mass
Luca Bonettia,b,c, John Ellisd,e, Nikolaos E. Mavromatosd,e,
Alexander S. Sakharovf,g,h, Edward K. Sarkisyan-Grinbaumh,i,
7 Alessandro D.A.M. Spalliccia,b,c
1
0
2 aObservatoire des Sciences de l’Univers en r´egion Centre, UMS 3116, Universit´e d’Orl´eans

r 1A rue de la F´erollerie, 45071 Orl´eans, France
a
M bPˆole de Physique, Collegium Sciences et Techniques, Universit´e d’Orl´eans
Rue de Chartres, 45100 Orl´eans, France
9

cLaboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace, UMR 7328
]
E Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique
H
LPC2E, Campus CNRS, 3A Avenue de la Recherche Scientifique, 45071 Orl´eans, France
.
h
dTheoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology Group, Physics Department
p
- King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom
o
r eTheoretical Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Gen`eve 23, Switzerland
t
s
a fDepartment of Physics, New York University
[
4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003, United States of America

2
v gPhysics Department, Manhattan College
7
4513 Manhattan College Parkway, Riverdale, NY 10471, United States of America
9
0
hExperimental Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Gen`eve 23, Switzerland
3
0
iDepartment of Physics, The University of Texas at Arlington
.
1
502 Yates Street, Box 19059, Arlington, TX 76019, United States of America
0
7
1
: Abstract
v
i
X
The photon mass, m , can in principle be constrained using measurements of the dispersion
r γ
a
measures (DMs) of fast radio bursts (FRBs), once the FRB redshifts are known. The DM of
the repeating FRB 121102 is known to < 1%, a host galaxy has now been identified with high
confidence, and its redshift, z, has now been determined with high accuracy: z = 0.19273(8).
Taking into account the plasma contributions to the DM from the Intergalactic medium (IGM)
andtheMilkyWay,weusethedataonFRB121102toderivetheconstraintm (cid:46) 2.2×10−14 eV
γ
c−2 (3.9×10−50 kg). Since the plasma and photon mass contributions to DMs have different
redshift dependences, they could in principle be distinguished by measurements of more FRB
redshifts, enabling the sensitivity to m to be improved.
γ
The photon is generally expected to be massless, but a number of theorists have
challenged this assumption, starting from de Broglie and nowadays considering models
with massive photons for dark energy and dark matter. Examples of mechanisms for
providing mass include Standard Model Extensions with supersymmetry and Lorentz
invariance breaking [1] and Higgs mechanisms [2]. In view of these possibilities and
its fundamental importance, it is important to constrain the magnitude of the photon
mass as robustly as possible. The most robust limits available are those from laboratory
experiments [3] - see [4,5] for reviews - but these are much weaker than those derived
from astrophysical observations. The Particle Data Group (PDG) [6] cites the upper
limit m < 8.4×10−19 eV c−2 (= 1.5×10−54 kg) [7] obtained by modelling the magnetic
γ
field of the solar system [7,8]. However, this limit relies on assumptions about the form of
the magnetic field and does not discuss measurement accuracy and errors. Another limit
(m < 4×10−52 kg) has been derived from atmospheric radio waves has been reported
γ
in [9]. A more conservative approach was followed in an analysis of Cluster data [10],
leading to an upper limit between 7.9×10−14 and 1.9×10−15 eV c−2 (1.4×10−49 and
3.4 × 10−51 kg). It is clearly desirable to explore more direct and robust astrophysical
constraints on a possible photon mass.
This was the motivation for a study we made [11] (see also [12]) showing how data
from fast radio bursts (FRBs) could be used to constrain m . These have durations in
γ
the millisecond range, and their signals are known to arrive with a frequency-dependent
dispersion in time of the 1/ν2 form. This is the dependence expected from plasma effects,
but a similar dispersion ∝ m2/ν2 could also arise from a photon mass. The dispersions
γ
induced by plasma effects and m both increase with distance (redshift z), but with
γ
different dependences on z. We note in this connection that the lower frequencies of FRB
emissions give a distinct advantage over gamma-ray bursters and other sources of high-
energy γ rays for constraining m , since mass effects are suppressed for higher-energy
γ
photons 1. Moreover, using FRB emissions to constrain m is much more direct and
γ
involves fewer uncertainties than using the properties of astrophysical magnetic fields 2.
That said, although the large dispersion measures (DMs) and other arguments led
to the general belief that FRBs occur at cosmological distances, until recently no FRB
redshift had been measured. The first claim to measure a redshift was made for FRB
1In contrast, sources of high-energy photons are better suited for probing models of Lorentz viola-
tion [13].
2Foranearlyconsiderationofpossibleastrophysicalphotonpropagationdelays,see[14]. Forpioneer-
ingstudiesusingastrophysicalsources,see[15](flarestars)and[16](Crabnebula),andforananalogous
subsequentstudywithgreatersensitivitytothephotonmass,see[17](GRB980703,m <4.2×10−47kg).
γ
The most recent such studies are those in [18] (GRB 050416A, m < 1.1×10−47 kg) and [19] (radio
γ
pulsars in the Magellanic clouds, m <2×10−48 kg). Our limit on m is significantly stronger.
γ γ
2
150418 [20], and this was the example we used in [11] to show how FRB measure-
ments could in principle be used to constrain m . However, the identification of the
γ
host galaxy of FRB 150418 has subsequently been challenged [21], and is now generally
not accepted [22].
Our interest in the possibility of using FRBs to constrain m has recently been re-
γ
vived, however, by the observation of repeated emissions from FRB 121102 [22]. These
have permitted precise localisation of its host galaxy, which has made possible a precise
determination of its redshift, z = 0.19273(8) [23]. This redshift determination makes it
possible, in turn, to use data on FRB 121102 to provide a robust constraint on m , as
γ
we discuss in this paper.
The dispersion measure (DM) is related to the frequency-dependent time lag of an
FRB by
(cid:16) ν (cid:17)−2 DM
∆t = 415 s. (1)
DM 1GHz 105 pc cm−3
In the absence of a photon mass, the time-lag of an FRB is given by integrating the
column density n of free electrons along the line of flight of its radio signal
e
(cid:90) dl ν2
p
∆t = , (2)
DM c 2ν2
whereν = (n e2/πm )1/2 = 8.98·103n1/2 Hz. Severalsourcescontributetothisintegrated
p e e e
column density of free electrons, notably the Milky Way galaxy, the intergalactic medium
(IGM) and the host galaxy. The contribution to the DM (1) of an FRB at redshift z from
the IGM is given by the cosmological density fraction Ω of ionized baryons [24,25]:
IGM
3cH Ω
0 IGM
DM = H (z), (3)
IGM e
8πGm
p
where H = 67.8(9) km/s/Mpc [6] is the present Hubble expansion rate 3, G is the
0
Newton constant, m is the proton mass, and the redshift-dependent factor
p
(cid:90) z (1+z(cid:48))dz(cid:48)
H (z) ≡ , (4)
e (cid:112)
Ω +(1+z(cid:48))3Ω
0 Λ m
where Ω = 0.692(12) and Ω = 0.308(12) [6]. For comparison, the difference in time
Λ m
lags between photons of energies E due to a non-zero photon mass has the form:
1,2
m2 (cid:18) 1 1 (cid:19)
γ
∆t = · − ·H (z), (5)
mγ 2H E2 E2 γ
0 1 2
3We discuss later the impact of assuming a broader range H =70(4) km/s/Mpc [26].
0
3
where we use natural units h = c = 1, and [27,28]
(cid:90) z dz(cid:48)
H (z) ≡ . (6)
γ (cid:112)
(1+z(cid:48))2 Ω +(1+z(cid:48))3Ω
0 Λ m
As already commented, the time lags due to the IGM and a possible photon mass have
different dependences (4, 6) on the redshift. The uncertainties in the cosmological pa-
rameters and the measurement of the redshift measurement of FRB 121102 are taken into
account in our analysis, with the uncertainties in the former being much more important,
as we see later.
The top (green) band in Fig. 1 shows the total DM = 558.1±3.3 pc cm−3 measured
for FRB 121102 [22]. The most conservative approach to constraining m would be
γ
to set to zero the other contributions, and assign this total DM to a possible photon
mass. However, this is surely over conservative, and a reasonable approach is to subtract
from the total DM the expected contribution from the Milky Way [22], DM , which
MW
is the sum of contributions from the disk [29]: DM (cid:39) 188 pc cm−3 and the halo:
NE2001
DM (cid:39) 30 pc cm−3 [23], to which we assign an overall uncertainty of 20%, namely 44 pc
halo
cm−3 [23], leaving the middle (blue) band in Fig. 1 that is centred at 340 pc cm−3. From
this we may also subtract the contribution from the IGM, which is estimated within the
ΛCDM model to be (cid:39) 200 pc cm−3 [23–25]. To this is assigned an uncertainty of 85 pc
cm−3 associated with inhomogeneities in the IGM [23,30], which is much larger than the
1.2%variationassociatedwithuncertaintiesinthecosmologicalparameters(shownasthe
narrow magenta band). The bottom (pink) band in Fig. 1, centred at 140 pc cm−3, shows
the effect of subtracting these contributions from the measured DM for FRB 121102.
After subtracting these contributions, we are left with a residual DM = 140 pc cm−3
with a total uncertainty of ±96 pc cm−3, shown as the outer pink band, where the error is
calculatedbycombininginquadraturetheuncertaintiesintheexperimentalmeasurement
of the total DM, the uncertainty in DM , and the uncertainties in DM associated
MW IGM
with the cosmological parameters H ,Ω and Ω and possible inhomogeneities. One
0 Λ m
cannot exclude the possibility that all the residual DM of FRB 121102 is due to the
host galaxy, which is estimated to lie within the range 55 (cid:46) DM (cid:46) 225 pc cm−3 [23].
Host
However, in the absence of detailed information about the host galaxy, when constraining
the photon mass we allow conservatively for the possibility that all the residual DM is
due to m (cid:54)= 0.
γ
The curved band in Fig. 1 shows the possible contribution to the DM of FRB 121102
of a photon mass, as a function of m : DM = 105m2H /(415A2h ), where H is given
γ γ γ 0 γ
in (6), A = 1.05 · 10−14 ev s−1/2 and h ≡ H /100km/s/Mpc. The width of this band
0 0
is due to the uncertainties in the cosmological parameters H ,Ω and Ω [6], and the
0 Λ m
4
600
3]
-m
c

·c
p500
M [
D
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
mg· 10-14[eV]
Figure 1: Contributions to the dispersion measure (DM) budget for FRB 121102. The
top (green) band represents the experimental measurement of the total DM = 558.1±3.3 pc
cm−3. The middle (blue) band shows the extragalactic contribution, as obtained by
subtracting from the central value of the total DM the galactic contribution DM ≡
MW
DM +DM = 218 pc cm−3 [23], to which is assigned an estimated uncertainty
NE2001 halo
of 20%. The bottom (pink) band is obtained by subtracting also the estimated contribu-
tion from the intergalactic medium (IGM): DM (cid:39) 200 pc cm−3 [23], which has an
IGM
uncertainty of 85 pc cm−3 associated with inhomogeneities in the IGM, and a smaller
uncertainty associated with the cosmological parameters (indicated by the narrow ma-
genta band). The outer pink band shows the total uncertainty in the residual DM after
subtraction of DM and DM , with errors added in quadrature. The curved (black)
MW IGM
band shows the possible contribution of a non-zero photon mass, m , also including the
γ
uncertainties in cosmological parameters and the redshift of FRB 121102.
5
uncertainty in the determination of the redshift of FRB 121102. Assuming that the
photon mass contribution to the total DM of FRB 121102 lies within the range allowed
fortheresidualDM,aftersubtractionoftheMilkyWayandIGMcontributionsandtaking
their uncertainties into account, we find m (cid:46) 2.2×10−14 eV c−2 (3.9×10−50 kg) 4. This
γ
limit is similar to, though slightly weaker than, that obtained from similar considerations
of FRB 150418 [11,12], whose redshift is now contested, as discussed earlier [21]. If FRB
150418 was indeed at a cosmological distance, using its DM value determined in [20] and
the same values of H (z) and H (z) as in the present analysis, we find that the inferred
e γ
limits on m would coincide if FRB 150418 had a redshift z = 0.38, instead of the value
γ
z = 0.492 reported in [20] and challenged in [21].
How could this constraint be improved in the future? Clearly it is desirable to reduce
the uncertainties in the modelling of the Milky Way and IGM contributions. Also, the
limit could be strengthened by a redshift measurement for an FRB at higher z, if the
uncertainty in the IGM contribution can be controlled. Finally, as remarked in [11],
comparing the DMs for FRBs with different redshifts could enable the IGM and m
γ
contributions to be disentangled, in view of their different dependences (4, 6) on z.
A hitherto unexplored window at very low frequencies in the MHz-KHz region could
be opened by a space mission consisting of a swarm of nanosatellites [31]. One possible
configuration would be orbiting the Moon, where it would be sufficiently away from
the ionosphere to avoid terrestrial interference, and would have stable conditions for
calibration during observations. Such low frequencies would offer a sensitive probe of any
delays due to a non-zero photon mass.
Acknowledgements
TheresearchofJ.E.andN.E.M.wassupportedpartlybytheSTFCGrantST/L000326/1.
The work of A.S.S. was supported partly by the US National Science Foundation under
Grants PHY-1505463 and PHY-1402964.
References
[1] L. Bonetti, L. R. dos Santos Filho, J. A. Helay¨el-Neto and A. D. A. M. Spallicci,
“Effective photon mass by super and Lorentz symmetry breaking”, Phys. Lett. B 764
(2017) 203, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.11.023, arXiv:1607.08786 [hep-ph].
4This limit would increase to m (cid:46) 2.3×10−14 eV c−2 (4.1×10−50 kg) if the more relaxed range
γ
H =70(4)km/s/Mpc[26]wereusedforH . Ontheotherhand,itwoulddecreasetom (cid:46)1.8×10−14eV
0 0 γ
c−2 (3.2×10−50 kg) if the minimum estimate of DM [23] was taken into account.
Host
6
[2] E. Adelberger, G. Dvali, A. Gruzinov, “Photon-mass bound destroyed by vortices”,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 010402, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.010402, arXiv:hep-
ph/0306245.
[3] E. R. Williams, J. E. Faller and H. A. Hill, “New experimental test of Coulomb’s
law: A laboratory upper limit on the photon rest mass”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 721
(1971), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.721.
[4] D. D. Lowenthal, “Limits on the photon mass”, Phys. Rev. D 8, 2349 (1973),
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.2349; L. C. Tu, J. Luo and G. T. Gillies, “The mass of
the photon”, Rept. Prog. Phys. 68, 77 (2005), doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/1/R02;
L. B. Okun, “Photon: History, mass, charge”, Acta Phys. Polon. B 37, 565 (2006),
http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/fulltext?series=Reg&Vol=37&page=565,
arXiv:hep-ph/0602036; G. Spavieri, J. Quintero, G. T. Gillies and M. Rodriguez,
“A survey of existing and proposed classical and quantum approaches to the photon
mass”, Eur. Phys. J. D 61, 531 (2011), doi:10.1140/epjd/e2011-10508-7.
[5] A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, “Photon and graviton mass limits”, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 82, 939 (2010), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.939, arXiv:0809.1003 [hep-ph].
[6] C. Patrignani et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics”, Chin. Phys.
C 40 (2016) 100001, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001
[7] D. D. Ryutov, “The role of finite photon mass in magnetohydrodynamics of
space plasmas”, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39, A73 (1997), doi:10.1088/0741-
3335/39/5A/008.
[8] D. D. Ryutov, “Using plasma physics to weigh the photon”, Plasma Phys. Control.
Fusion 49, B429 (2007), doi:10.1088/0741-3335/49/12B/S40.
[9] M. Fu¨llekrug, “Probing the speed of light with radio waves at extremely low
radio frequencies”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, 043901 (2004), doi: 10.1103/Phys-
RevLett.93.043901.
[10] A. Retin`o, A. D. A. M. Spallicci and A. Vaivads, “Solar wind test of the de Broglie-
Proca’s massive photon with Cluster multi-spacecraft data”, Astropart. Phys. 82
(2016) 49, doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2016.05.006, arXiv:1302.6168 [hep-ph].
[11] L. Bonetti, J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, A. S. Sakharov, E. K. Sarkisyan-Grinbaum
and A. D. A. M. Spallicci, “Photon mass limits from fast radio bursts”, Phys. Lett. B
757(2016)548, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.035, arXiv:1602.09135[astro-ph.HE].
7
[12] X.-F. Wu, S.-B. Zhang, H. Gao, J.-J. Wei, Y.-C. Zou, W.-H. Lei, B. Zhang, Z.-
G. Dai and P. M´esz´aros, “Constraints on the photon mass with fast radio bursts”,
Astrophys. J. 822 (2016) L15, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/1/L15, arXiv:1602.07835
[astro-ph.HE].
[13] G.Amelino-Camelia, J.R.Ellis, N.E.Mavromatos, D.V.NanopoulosandS.Sarkar,
“Tests of quantum gravity from observations of gamma-ray bursts”, Nature 393, 763
(1998), doi:10.1038/31647, arXiv:astro-ph/9712103; see also J. R. Ellis, K. Farakos,
N. E. Mavromatos, V. A. Mitsou and D. V. Nanopoulos, “Astrophysical probes of the
constancy of the velocity of light”,Astrophys.J.535,139(2000),doi:10.1086/308825,
arXiv:astro-ph/9907340.
[14] L. de Broglie, “La M´ecanique Ondulatoire du Photon. Une Nouvelle Th´eorie de la
Lumi`ere”, Hermann, Paris, 1940.
[15] B. Lovell, F. L. Whipple and L. H. Solomon, “Relative velocity of light and radio
wave in space”, Nature 202, 157 (1964).
[16] B. Warner and R. E. Nather, “Wavelength independence of the velocity of light in
space”, Nature 222, 157 (1969), doi:10.1038/222157b0.
[17] B. E. Schaefer, “Severe limits on variations of the speed of light with fre-
quency,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4964 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4964 [astro-
ph/9810479].
[18] B.Zhang,Y.-T.Chai,Y.-C.ZouandX.-F.Wu,“Constraining the mass of the photon
with gamma-Ray bursts,” JHEAp 11-12 (2016) 20 doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2016.07.001
arXiv:1607.03225 [astro-ph.HE].
[19] J.-J. Wei, E.-K. Zhang, S.-B. Zhang and X.-F. Wu, “New Limits on the Photon Mass
with Radio Pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds,” Res. Astron. Astrophys. 17 (2017)
13 doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/2/13 arXiv:1608.07675 [astro-ph.HE].
[20] E. F. Keane et al., “A fast radio burst host galaxy,” Nature 530, 453 (2016),
doi:10.1038/nature17140, arXiv:1602.07477 [astro-ph.HE].
[21] P. K. G. Williams and E. Berger, “No precise localization for FRB 150418: claimed
radio transient is AGN variability”,Astrophys.J.821(2016),L22,doi:10.3847/2041-
8205/821/2/L22, arXiv:1602.08434 [astro-ph.CO]; H. K. Vedantham, V. Ravi,
K.Mooley, D.Frail, G.HallinanandS.R.Kulkarni, “On associating fast radio bursts
8
with afterglows”, Astrophys. J. 824 (2016), L9, doi:10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L9,
arXiv:1603.04421 [astro-ph.HE].
[22] S.Chatterjeeet al., “The direct localization of a fast radio burst and its host”, Nature
541, 58 (2017), doi:10.1038/nature20797, arXiv:1701.01098 [astro-ph.HE].
[23] S. P. Tendulkar et al., “The host galaxy and redshift of the repeating fast radio
burst FRB 121102”, Astrophys.J.834, L7(2017), doi:10.3847/2041-8213/834/2/L7,
arXiv:1701.01100 [astro-ph.HE].
[24] K. Ioka, “Cosmic dispersion measure from gamma-ray burst afterglows: probing the
reionization history and the burst environment”, Astrophys. J. 598, L79 (2003),
doi:10.1086/380598, arXiv:astro-ph/0309200.
[25] S. Inoue, “Probing the cosmic reionization history and local environment of gamma-
ray bursts through radio dispersion”, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 348, 999 (2004),
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07359.x, arXiv:astro-ph/0309364.
[26] N. Jackson, “The Hubble constant”, Living Rev. Relativity, 18 (2015) 2,
doi:10.1007/lrr-2015-2.
[27] J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, A. S. Sakharov and E. K. G. Sark-
isyan, “Robust limits on Lorentz violation from gamma-ray bursts”, Astropart. Phys.
25, 402 (2006), doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2006.04.001, arXiv:astro-ph/0510172;
Erratum, ibidem 29, 158 (2008), doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2007.12.003,
arXiv:0712.2781 [astro-ph].
[28] U. Jacob and T. Piran, “Lorentz-violation-induced arrival delays of cosmologi-
cal particles”, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 0801, 031 (2008), doi:10.1088/1475-
7516/2008/01/031, arXiv:0712.2170 [astro-ph].
[29] J. M. Cordes and T. J. W. Lazio, “NE2001. 1. A new model for the galactic distri-
bution of free electrons and its fluctuations”, arXiv:astro-ph/0207156.
[30] M. McQuinn, “Locating the “missing” baryons with extragalactic dispersion mea-
sure estimates”, Astrophys. J. 780 (2014) L33, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33,
arXiv:1309.4451 [astro-ph.CO].
[31] M.J.Bentum, L.Bonetti, A.D.A.M.Spallicci, “ Dispersion by pulsars, magnetars,
fast radio bursts and massive electromagnetism at very low radio frequencies”, Adv.
Sp. Res., 59, 736 (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2016.10.0.018, arXiv:1607.08820 [astro-
ph.IM].
9